Talk:Trophy
renaming to "Collectable Drop", soliciting final oppositions As stated in the discussion of Category talk:Collector Items#Naming..., I want to find a less ambiguous term. Since the name "Collector Item" isn't used by the game, it's non-standard anyways, and I plan to make Collector Item a disambiguation for Collectable Drop vs Collector Reward. Originally I thought about renaming to "Collectable Item", but Rainith brought up another potential case of ambiguity, so I decided to go with "Drop" instead of "Item". If no one speaks up (I already suggested "Collectable Drop" over at Category talk:Collector Items#Naming... 2 days ago), I'm going to make the change Monday night Pacific time. If you think you have a better name that also avoids ambiguity, post it! --PanSola 19:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC) :Ok, I guess I'll mention this before you go to all the work of changing this. :Is this necessary? We have our defination of what a Collector Item is, so how much does it matter what other people might call it? It seems to me that it would be easier (possibly better, that's a matter of opinion) in the long run for us to come up with terms for what other people might confuse with collector items (I would suggest Collector Rewards, Collector Armor, Collector Weapons, etc...) and define them, put those articles in Category:Slang & Terminology and move on from there? :I'm still not opposed to changing the name, but I think it might be more work than it is worth, when we could solve the problem with a few small articles. --Rainith 12:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC) ::To me, it matters because the term itself is ambiguous, and people get to the wrong page to find out this is not the article they want (honestly, most people I know (which is admittably a tiny sample set) consider Collector Items to mean the rewards, not the drops). And I feel awkward putting disambiguation notes at the top of real articles blah blah. If you look at Collector Item Reward Template, you will also notice the original author of that article uses "Collector Item Reward" and "Collector Item" interchangably. That the term really has ambiguity built into it. From the way the English language work, it is easy for many people to consider "Items" as a superset of "Armor" and "Weapons". ::Blah, I guess my point is, we should just have names that not ambiguous to start with, instead of creating ambiguous articles and inside those articles tell people where to find the other thing the article name could've meant. Kind of like why we have Domination Magic (Attribute) vs Domination Magic (Quest), instead of having just naming the attribute one "Domination Magic" and at the top of that article say "If you are looking for the quest named Domination Magic, click this link." -PanSola 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC) :::It is ambiguous, and will probably always be so because the game does not give a specific name to these items (like it does for Domination Magic, both of them). Which is why in the article Collector Item we very specifcally define what it is. As for the template you talked about, that has lain fallow since it was created, and has (to my knowledge) never actually been used. :::More to the point, where would people get the confusion from? Would they go to Category:Collector Items and say, "Ooh, where's the collector that will give me the Alpine Seeds?" Before a large change is made, are you certain that it should be made? The only confusion I've seen recently has been over what the defination of a Salvage Item is. :::Note: if any of the above sounds like I'm trying to come down on you, please don't take it that way. I just want to make sure that if a change is made to something that has been around this way for half a year or so, we're sure that it is the right change to make. --Rainith 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC) ::::Well the point about the template was that someone else (not just a random user) also used the term "Collector Item" in the different way, which diversified my sample set of people who used that term in that way. As you agree, the term "Collector Item" is ambiguous, and since the game doesn't use this term, why not just avoid it altogether (that's what I'm trying to do) for this wiki? We can't help with any game-introduced ambiguity like Domination Magic, but why otherwise perputrate ambiguity when we can call them something else. BTW yeah I know you are concerned with lots of work w/ little or no benefit, as opposed to coming down on me (-: -PanSola 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC) ::::And consider the game has had the precedence of giving out something kinda random like Devourer Egg (which is a quest item) as a collector reward, perhaps someone looking up Alpine Seed (because the player just found a collector who will take alpine seed and reward something the player wants) to find where to get it, saw that not only do Junipter Barks and Pine Souls drop them (and being a mesmer who can never find humans to party with, goes with henchmen who won't trade or give up their invisible drops), but that it's a "Collector Item" (which s/he assumes means "reward")! Given the relative number of Pine Souls and Junipter Barks compared to other mobs in the N. Shiverpeaks, it's possible that the player had stocked up too many Badges and Manes while hardly have any Seeds, so was excited to find a collector who would reward seed (possibly taking Mane or Badges). And then the player gets disappointed because from Category:Collector Items it became appareant that this wiki use the term "Collector Item" to mean something different. ::::Or, another player (player2) told this first player (who doesn't know aboug GuildWiki) that a reputable Guild Wars fansite has listed "Alpine Seed" as a "Collector Item" (and he uses the term to mean "reward" too, not reading enough GuildWiki articles of category "Collector Items" to realize it meant something else here), though player2 was too lazy to go back and look up where the collector who rewards Alpine Seed was, leaving player1 running around the Shiverpeaks looking for a collector who doesn't exist. So the player would get confusion from those actual articles. Sure, my examples are a little bit stretched (takes a bit of coincedence for the ignorance), but I know if I have 20 Stone Summit badges and 15 Shiverpeak Manes that I don't know what to do with, really want to upgrade my boots at Yak's Bend, then I would really be willing to trade at a 5-to-1 ratio to obtain Alpine Seeds. AND the history of having Quest rewards as a collector reward really makes it possible that Anet might put in traders who take 2~5 collectable drops of one type and reward one of a different type. When people are inclined to believe in something, it's not too hard to mislead them even if that something isn't true. -PanSola 23:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Whoa, no need to write me a novel, you have your userpage fanfiction for that ;) I just wanted to make sure you were certain that this was the best way to go. As I've stated before, I'm not against this, I think there are easier ways to reduce confusion, and I don't see that there is much confusion here, but if you do than please make the changes. --Rainith 23:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)